Bitcoin Forum

I have now been watching the Atheist and Christian community (it is NOT an Atheist/Theist community, they only talk to Christians) and I just want to point something out.

Atheists don't like testing themselves. When someone like Bill Nye debates Ken Ham, they all talk like "Are we sure we should really validate Ken Ham like that?" but then when Bill Nye is not debating Ken Ham, Matt Dillahunty is debating Sye Ten and everyone else is debating G man. The way to prove these people are not worth validating is by proving them wrong, not by talking to them OVER AND OVER.

If anyone else has been watching, you have probably noticed that Atheism has not ever clearly beaten the Presup. I personally think ALL the Christian arguments fail, and I actually have rebuttals for most of them, but the Atheists have literally been on this SAME topic for almost a year. Can someone PLEASE just think of a better argument than "Well, maybe I'm in a Matrix, but that's ok" again, I don't think the Christians have good arguments, but the Atheists have failed here.

If someone like Bill Nye doesn't come and prove it wrong, it will literally have atheists yelling at their computers for eternity, then having chats afterwards to talk about how circular the eternal debate was.

If someone wants to beat the presup, all you have to do is appeal outside your own reason. Stop being so full of yourself, and accept that you are not using YOUR reasoning, but are building on the reasoning of your ancestors, using their reasoning AND your reasoning, and hearing the reasoning of other. I have literally been watching for almost a year, and no one has been able to do that.

When I first noticed the Atheist community on Youtube a few months ago, I thought they were honestly the more intelligent side. I saw Bill Nye debate Ken Ham, and I thought he completely destroyed him, no one ever talks about the biggest boats we have ever made. Why would no one else use that in an argument against Noah? The boats fall apart, period.

As I watched the debates, I continued to feel as if the Atheists were smarter. But when you watch 2 people like Max Mills and Nick Duncan debate, you can see that there are obviously still some smart people that believe in God (and in case atheists don't know, not all religions require a creator).

But then I noticed something. "Atheism" has simply attached itself to "science". They are not smarter, in fact, many of them are "Shit Slingers". they will literally just say things like "Any tradition from before Jesus was just there because they had no better answer for it", not realizing that Doctors today STILL say the Hippocratic oath. This made it clear to me that Atheism and Science are actually opposed to each other.

Atheists don't like History. If you were to talk to a family in Britain, I am pretty damn sure they would know about the Royal family and the history thereof, and if you went to Vietnam they would probably have a pretty good idea of their heritage.

But because these Atheists are in America (and I have noticed a lot from Australia), they have the mentality that "That is ancient history", having no idea that history is how we got here.

They can accept Cosmology, and think that because they accept that, somehow they are "Science". But Science is far bigger than the realms of the atheist argument. Which has currently devolved to shit slinging. Can someone at least mold their shit into a nice statuette before slinging the next steaming heap?

We argue against people whose only argument is a 2,000 year old book written by stoners.  There has been zero happenings in 2,000 years that they can attribute to their god.  (I'm talking all the gods on earth, not just the christian one.)

How can you have logical arguments with the brainwashed?

I haven't been able to tell if you are simply speaking sarcastically, or if you really think that stoners (whatever they are) wrote the Bible. But, if you are serious, consider that the almost 2,000 to 3,500-year-old Bible is one of the most studied books around today. And it isn't only studied by children and mentally retarded. It is studied by some of the greatest debaters around. Consider Ken Ham. Also, many scientists study the Bible.

How much more popular does the Bible have to get before people will see that there is something to what this book has to say? If there wasn't any strength to the book, more than any other book, it would have disappeared into antiquity long ago. Consider Plato. Many people read Plato. Some read Plutarch. Some, Socrates, some Aristotle. But these writings, along with many others, fade into obscurity that is virtual invisiblility in the presence of the amount of Bible reading that is done.

Part of the thing that atheists are missing is having something that is this strong, strong like the Bible. at the core of ALL scientific writings, there exists the great "IF." "IF" this or that happened, then we would have a universe that started with a Big Bang, one that is 13 or 14 billion years old, one where evolution by random happenstance brought us all into being, etc.  

Science and atheism have lots of theories, and ideas that are not even theories. But way down deep, the ideas and theories have no strength if they can't be proven. That's what science is all about... the facts. Scientifically we simply don't know many of the scientific things that are expressed in many books as fact. The Bill Nye's of the world know this. They have been debated into the corner on many occasions... if not by Christian debaters, then by their own conscience when seeking the truth.

One of the strong things that the Bible has, even if the Bible happens to NOT be truth, is that it states the things that it says as though they are FACT. Even if they are not fact, they state it as such. When you have a book that you can't go out an prove is false, simply because nobody has much of the history of the Bible recorded anywhere else, the best you can do is say that it is improbable or implausible. When you stand this up against the scientific non-fact, that is expressed by the "core" scientists right in their scientific papers, what else can the result be?

So, science loses by not being able to prove the things that they say. And the fact that they admit this in their core papers, proves that there is no substance to the science.

While the Bible has all kinds of statements, it is from the past. So, until the scientists can virtually prove Bible statements wrong, these Bible statements stand. This is the strength of the Bible. This is the Bible strength where atheist or anti-Bible people and debaters lose.

:)

Surely, that's the wrong way round. Shouldn't we assume the bible statements are fiction until they are proven true?

The thread wasn't talking about what we should or should not be assuming. It was talking about why atheists debaters use political speaking rather than getting down to the proof. My post explains that.

As far as fact goes, essentially nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong. But many scientific theories about things like evolution have been proven wrong, often by the same scientist that made the particular theory.

The Bible has strength by default, simply because of this. So, consider the strength that it would have if it were proven true.

:)

Only for those brainwashed by it. That's the key.

For the vast majority of the world, the bible is simply an outdated book that says rape victims should be forced to marry their attackers.   :-\

The vast majority of the world has been brainwashed by whatever other than the Bible has brainwashed them. Often, however, they have the excuse of not having the availability of the Bible in their location, although the Bible is making many inroads into Southeast Asia.

Rather than realizing that modern science has not proven many of the things that it expresses as fact, people go on believing in the scientific lies.

:)

See?  This is why you can't argue with a brainwashed person.  They will flat out lie to protect their cult.
If I cared to spend any time, I could show a thousand of these examples.  
Ther brainwashed will call the sky pink if that is what their god says - even though they look at it and see it is blue.


The moon is not a light

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made thestars also.

Our sun is not the same age as the rest of the stars.  Stars are considerably older than the earth.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The Earth is not motionless

Psalms 104:5 The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved.


If you believe science is a lie and your god will save you, go step off a cliff, you fool.   ;)

Brainwashing is a religious delight.  I am not forced to congregate with other brainwashed people once a week lest my common sense start taking hold.  I don't need my physics teachers to prove to me weekly that gravity pulls me down.  I'm not forced to repeat brainwashed phrases a dozen time a week (the lord is with you, and also with you)....  Why do you guys feel the need to keep reminding you of your faith?  Because without constant reinforcement, brainwashing fades.

That is why every year your god loses followers (even in the US!) and more people pronounce they don't believe in fairly tales anymore.  You are a dying breed.   :-\

The easiest historical fact to disprove in the bible is the world wide flood. There are ice core samples from the south pole that go back almost 120,000 years. They form layers just like tree rings. Studies of ice core samples reveal a lot of information about weather each year and these show that there was no world wide flood anywhere near that time.

For me, the closest thing to God is the mathematical nature of the universe. Sometimes when I learn a new theorem or procedure, I can see such beauty in it that I wonder if this is what people mean when they say they saw the face of God.

You and your word games.

The moon is not a light
But that's really all we knew of it until we went there.

Our sun is not the same age as the rest of the stars.  Stars are considerably older than the earth.
The quoted Bible passage suggests that the stars were made at a different time than the sun was, by at least a few seconds, anyway. But we don't know that the stars are considerably older than the earth for a fact. The ONLY scientific method we have for determining that the stars even exist is the starlight that comes from the sky. Again, it is all based on the scientific "IF."

The Earth is not motionless
The quoted bible passage has to do with a poetic way of saying that the earth's whole cosmology is set and cannot be changed.

Happy now? I played your game a little.

:)

Of course!  That's what the bible is - written based on the beliefs of the time - beliefs we have since proved to be wrong.  :)

So why do you still believe?  Answer:  Brainwashing.  The only other answer is you are being wilfully ignorant.

Absolutely we know this for a fact.  Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.  There are people a lot smarter than you in the world.  :)

Do you believe president Obama exists?  The only method you have for determining this is from the light that comes off your TV.   ::)

Without going into great detail...

We were taught in school that the speed of light is a constant at approximately 186,000 miles per second. It is only recently that the knowledge that the speed of light changes, and that some scientists have known about this for decades, has come to public light (pun intended).

The point is, we can only guess what the ice core samples are showing us because, we don't know for sure how they were deposited in the distant past.

:)

YOU can only guess - your religion has had no new answers for 2,000 years.   :-\  You seem to not comprehend how much we have learned in 2,000 years!

Science knows exactly when the ice was laid down and even what the atmosphere was like at the time.  All using tools and knowledge you could use in the comfort of your own home should you choose to open your closed mind.   :)

How do you know this?  Your priest told you?  How does he know this?  His priest told him?

That's what brainwashing is.  Ignoring the proof before your eyes over what you have been repeatedly told.  The earth moves, dude.

 ;)

Woah, woah woah...Back up...where are you getting this from?  Quite to the contrary:  nearly everything in the Bible has been proven false either through just being straight up wrong or by exclusion from written history.  

By the latter I simply mean the events in question simply are not mentioned, outside the Bible of course.  No Egyptian inscriptions of the adopted son of Pharoah bringing plagues upon Egypt, killing babies, parting the Red Sea, jacking all Pharoah's slaves...and these are people who wrote about EVERYTHING.  The same can be said of Jesus...nothing is ever mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible.  You would think in a time when people are painting and carving things about every God and event and even political campaigns in Pompeii at least one thing might be found proclaiming the miracles of Jesus at all.  

Everything in the Bible is written no closer than the third person, usually further separated, and the final draft that we know and resent today was actually written several hundred years after the written about events.  It is actually a pet theory of mine that the story of Jesus was contrived by the Romans as a tool to maintain control of their vast empire through religious doctrine since it was becoming impossible to rule through political means.  You cannot rule the world through government...but you sure as hell can through religion.  

I am hoping that there hasn't been something like a big black hole that has destroyed all of the rest of space, and simply hasn't gotten here. If its destruction is propagated at the speed of light, the only people that might have an instant inkling that destruction is upon us, will be the astronomers that happen to have their eye to the telescope when it hits.

The smarter people would agree with me on this.

:)

Because you just stated scientific fact.   ;)  There is a giant black hole at the centre of most galaxies, including the Milky Way. In a few hundred billion years the earth will be pulled in.

Your bible doesn't mention this, because the people who wrote it were ignorant.  And you are promoting their ignorance 2,000 years later.   :-\

The final draft of the Bible as we know it was compiled, not written.

As far as Egyptian history, it's only recently that archaeologists have been able to agree on the timeline of much of it, simply because of what the Egyptian people wrote as fact, when in reality it was exaggerated.

Gradually, we are finding that there are written records of the things written in the Bible. Israel, the nation that was the "home" for the early Bible was destroyed, finally. It is the conqueror who writes the history.

:)

I do agree with the OP though.  I have been following the Four Horsemen (or three now?)  more closely lately and I noticed there is a lot of times when they give way more concessions to the opposition than ought be allowed.  

But the fact of the matter is this is not something that these debates are really needed to solve.  People are smarter now.  I would wager the least intelligent person today is as smart as the above average intelligent person in the times the Council of Nicea convened, and several hundred years after.  People are not as ignorant to what is real and observable as they were before.  And the church simply does not have the power it used to have.  We still hold reverence to it like it does, for some reason, which is unfortunate.  But whenever anyone tries to challenge me with the "why is Christianity so popular throughout the world then? Are all those people just stupid and duped?"  My answer is no.  The fact is for the 2,000 since Christ the church has brutally murdered anyone who didn't believe the way they did and we are only a few generations from the times when people were burned at the stake for heresy...which was a pretty hefty list of just about anything that didn't involve reading the Bible or being in church.  

Again, you don't know that what yo are writing here is fact.  :)

No, we're not.  Like your priests, information is being moulded to fit into your brainwashing.  The only place the information is shared is in church with other brainwashed members.  Such information will eventually be peer reviewed and restricted to the realm of fairy tales.

The Egyptian "plagues" were cause by a long drought.  The Egyptians eventually let their slaves go because they couldn't be fed.  Nothing to do with your imaginary god.

Well, finally you are saying something that is true. Only you are talking about your religion of atheism, even though you don't know it.

:)

Again, I do.  I can prove the scientific theories in my own home anytime.  That's how science works.  :)

If you are getting all your information from the bible (because there is no other information available) then you don't know what you are writing is fact.  So stop passing it off as fact and promoting ignorance.   :)

Everything I write is true.  You never bothered to educate yourself, relying instead on a dying belief system based on ignorance.

One day you will realize the truth, and you are going to feel like such an idiot for believing,  I know, because it happened to me. 

:)

You play with semantics. I doubt that there is any bible person who thinks that the moon is light. The way that people wrote back then is different from the way that we write. That's all.

Consider, we may find in the future that all material is really made out of light. Who knows what scientists will discover.

:)

Well, I hope that even with the weekly brainwashing, most cult members manage to talk to enough normal people to realize it's reflected light - not it's own source.

My point is - back when the bible was written - everyone believed the moon was it's own light source.

How can you believe anything that is written in such a book?  Answer:  You usually don't unless you are forced through repeated church visits.

New answers? Why would one want new answers when the old ones are the correct ones?

Science simply thinks that it knows about the origins of the ice in the core samples.

:)

It's in the way it is written. Read it yourself, and you will see.  :)

So you believe a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker?   :-\

You believe the moon is it's own light source?

You believe the world is flat?

Why don't you stop with the semantics and name even one thing that the bible got right...   ;)

Pay attention.  I have read it.  I was brainwashed when I was younger - forced into church every week before I could think for myself.  Drilled the lies into my brain over and over.

I, like millions of others every year, are moving on from ignorance.

Now it is you who is "fairytaling."  :)

Read scientific journals.  Then you will see.  Peer review is how we know scientific fact is fact and not just bible talk.
 
 :)

That's what I have been saying about scientific theories all along!. They can be proven to be theories. In addition many of the theories can be proven to be talk only, and not theories at all.

:)

How many times do I have to let go of a ball and see it drop to the floor before you believe in gravity?

Or do you need your priest to do it for you? 

 ;)

The Bible was written for everyone. In order to make it understandable, it had to be written in a way that was for the people who would read it. The choice of not believing it is a choice only.

:)

Again, how do you know?  Your priest told you. I think it was written by stoned people who couldn't figure out what they were experiencing, so they gave it their best effort.

It obviously was not written with today's knowledge, so it shouldn't be used to make today's decisions.

 ;)

I agree that some scientific review is fact. But much of it has been built of previous "IF" ideas.

:)

Ah, so all the threats of an infinite life of constant torture don't play into it.   :D

You really think you'd have 1% of your numbers if people weren't threatened into believing?

It's not a choice.  It's blackmail.

 :)

That's how science works.  When I am making a theory on how diamonds are formed, I don't need to go and re-prove gravity. 

 :)

Since it is fact - the future "torture" part, I mean - why not heed the warning. Now and again you must heed a warning or two. so why not heed this one and save yourself from it?

:)

You know I have to say I am so grateful that the people who penned the Bible had more foresight to keep the writing of the Bible timelessly understandable.  

Kind of makes you wonder why their Creator was so shortsighted when His word was so vague it became the basis for more bloodshed than any man, virus or natural disaster could ever hope to be.

Like I said before, now that the church has lost the ability to take a match to anyone speaking against them, their days are numbered.  

That's why many of the theories stay theories, if they don't pass from view completely. The homework was never done.

:)

It's not fact - it's written in the bible, in the age of ignorance.  We are 2,000 years more wiser now, and only the brainwashed still believe in a heaven or hell.

My beliefs are based on facts alone - no threats if I don't believe.

 :D

How many bible theories were ever proved?   ::)  How many hundreds have been disproved??

If we argue on who is right - my scientific knowledge or your bible fairy tales - you are going to lose every time.

 :)

The earth is spiraling out of control regarding evil. Jesus is holding it as it is to save some. It is difficult to follow all the work He is going through to save some.

:)

So with record numbers leaving the cult, you view every person that overcomes brainwashing as evil?  

Nice belief system you have there.  Thankfully it won't be around forever.

 :)

Sorry your words get lost in this nonsense. I did say in my first post that arguing with brainwashed fools is difficult.   :-\

I do agree with you about their days being numbered.  What you are seeing here is someone getting very desperate.

Yet, in all your wisdom, you don't have a method for keeping yourself alive much more than a few years. One would think that if our age was so wise, they would have figured out how to live for a couple hundred years anyway.

:)

You can't prove what doesn't exist.  :)

Ever heard of the dark ages?  A period of 400 years where most scientific study stopped thanks to your cult?

Had that not happened, we would know how to live forever already.

Thanks, idiot god.   :-\

Yet you are doing your best to brainwash me.  Won't work buddy - I'm too intelligent.   ;)

Unfortunately, science propagandizing is having some effect. Over the thousands of years, there was always something that propagandized people away from God. Mostly, it is the devil.

:)

Wow...that is amazing...I am going to end this conversation because, even by the testimony of your Jesus Christ, there is no man who knows the future.  There is no point in debating whether or not Jesus is cruising around the world in a Sport's Model waiting for the right time to come down in the clouds and take up His people, assuming the Muzzies don't nuke Him out of the sky first....

So just out of curiosity.  This came to me just recently and I want to get a real Christian opinion on this...

I was reflecting the other day on my kids, and how they are growing to learn the difference from right and wrong, moral value, empathy, etc.  It is a strong belief amongst the Christian folks that without God there could be no morality...

So the question is, how is it that children and even ancient tribes and even modern isolated tribes in the amazon and such have concepts of good and bad and right and wrong and have many of the 10 commandments, for example, understood as social norms without the need for a God framework.  

Mostly, it was people forcing other people to believe, or die.  I guess you could call those cult members the devil...

 ;)

Actually, we know how to live much longer. The part of it that is written for us is in the New Testament. Dying in Jesus is the way to rise to everlasting life.

:)

More brainwashing.

I don't believe in any god and I am extremely moral.  More so than Badecker for sure.  He can commit any crime and pray to his god for forgiveness.  I have to actually live with what I do.

 :-\

Yeah, I know. The devil's got you already. But the fact that you are still alive suggests that there's still a chance...

:)

Well, I'm talking actually living longer, not imaginary fairy tales.  Science.  Medicine.  The real stuff that keeps you and your family alive.  

Back in the day your bible was written people died by age 30.  Distancing ourselves from the christian god seems to be the best way to live longer.  And you don't have to worry about breaking some imaginary rule and spending eternity in hell.

 ;)

You do know that the word 'theory' in the scientific sense doesn't mean 'theory' in the general sense?


It isn't a theory in the general sense of, "Hey, I've a theory as to why Bob jumped off the cliff". A scientific theory, like the Theory of Evolution is something that is an accepted fact demonstrated by a multitude of observation and experimentation through multiple scientific fields of study yet, as all science should be, could be modified or replaced by new data.

When you Xtian fundies talk about Creationism (or it's devious modern mask of 'Intelligent Design') as being equally deserving a 'theory' as Evolution, you are misrepresenting what Creationism is as a theory compared to Evolution. Creationism is a myth dreamed up in human imagination and insisted upon by men in silly hats and frocks who told everyone to accept what they said was true solely because they were the ones saying it was true.

Whereas science can be performed by anyone to demonstrate whether what is being claimed as true, actually is.

Do you see the massive intellectual chasm between how the scientific method allows for everybody to objectively understand and even test for themselves if need be, why an accepted theory is correct, and the 'because I say so' appeal-to-authority of a bunch of old men living in a delusional state involving made-up special magical words and symbolic rituals.

Did your preacher tell you that?  Or did you gather than from your 2,000 year old book?  Can't be independent thought - your cult frowns on that.    :-\

I will never go around threatening to kill people if they don't believe in a fairy tale.  Your devil don't have me.  

 :)

Morality was written on the heart of the first man in the beginning. It has been handed down through the genes, and through fetal life, to all people.

:)

Whatever the way, believing in God for salvation is a benefit for anyone.  :)

So now you are saying the 2,000 year old man had better morals than we do today?

Do I need to pull up the quote again where the rape victim is forced to marry her attacker?

Your god's morals are all fucked up.  Morals developed with society.  

Today it is illegal to have sex with a sexually mature 13 year old girl.  When your bible was written, they were already mothers.

Stop spewing brainwashed nonsense - you are losing.

 :)

The whole point of being an Athiest or even Agnostic is admitting you don't know, that's why they can't and won't give an answer, because to simply make one up is extremely arrogant and misleading to people who are genuinely wanting to know the truth of the matter. So when I hear some prick going on about God and his only scientific evidence is a several thousand year old book which ignores the laws of physics on so many levels it amazes me that people somehow think that's okay yet having the integrity to admit you don't know something is somehow wrong.

We will find the answer eventually either way, it's just not that likely to happen in this century, especially when we haven't bothered with space flight yet, so you're just going to have to accept that instead of whining at Athiests to come up with an answer for you. Science aside, It wouldn't matter to me personally whether or not God existed, because going by the followers on here, he's nothing more than an oppressive cunt bent on the domination of sentient beings.

you understand that the heart is nothing more than an organ that facilitates blood flow, right?  That whole written on the heart thing makes me giggle like a girl.  It is another example of meaningless theological babble that proves nothing.  You cannot refer to the Bible or anything written within it to prove the reality of what you claim is real.  If you cannot give me tangible observable empirical evidence than I am sorry we have nothing to talk about.

Your smug commentary thus far is quite proof that you already know you are beaten...

And this is the exact reason that the Theory of Evolution is no longer scientific theory.

:)

Why?  When you die, you're dead.  No matter what you believe in.

How does it benefit someone to think they can have a second chance to right things in your heaven?

Because I don't believe in a god, I have to treat people right here and now.  

 ;)

I do love how those of us supporting observable fact are the ones who are responsible for providing evidence against their made up perspectives...

Ah, so it is just "of Evolution"?   ::)  You just called it a theory yourself.

TRY STANDING UP TO YOUR PRIEST!  Call out BULLSHIT when he starts teling you things like this!

 :)

ROFL! Sure, go on, let's have the link that proves Evolution has been thrown out as THE scientific explanation.

Proof or it didn't happen.

His Uncle Priest told him so.

We should be ignoring them, but unfortunately these morons make up a good percentage of the population and will try to preach their bullshit to anyone naive enough to pay attention.

Luckily, their numbers are dropping.  :)

lol yes thank fuck, it's all thanks to hateful crazies like Badecker :D

Yeah it really made me think twice about our Republican government system (the way it should be, not the way it is) when you consider the only qualification you need to vote is to be 18...*shivers*

If the voting age was lowered to 13 the Republicans would be irrelevant and that's a fact.

I'm sure that entropy has removed a lot of the clarity of the natural law written on our hearts. But it is still there, just like the genetic code is still there allowing us to propagate.

For the time, and under the circumstances mentioned, rape victim marriage was the best solution.

Have you ever noticed that people are becoming sexually aware these days, at a much younger age than they did years ago? Personally, I think it is because we are entering the final ages of where we will be able to propagate, because of entropy. This would indicate that the time of Jesus' return is near.

:)

Yeah I don't know.  I like the theory of people being able to take care of themselves without government mommy's and daddies anymore but then I look around...like here...and realize I am just as looney as these funyons if I believe that could ever happen.  

And that is a good point to what someone said before about what difference does it make what someone believes.

It means a lot.  It means, even subliminally, there are decisions that people who believe Christ is coming on the tail end of a mushroom cloud that are just waiting--perhaps even yearning for--the doom to kick off so their Messiah can come take them home.  

Brainwashed fools like BADecker sure help my post count.

The bible says their god is all powerful - no limitations.

Why did he need to "rest" on the seventh day?  Something (mental, physical, other) was tapped out.

How can a god who needs to rest be all powerful?

BADecker - try using your brain in church and you will be surprised at what you'll understand.  

 :)

You understand, don't you, that the heart used in many contexts means more than the simple organ. Look it up in the dictionaries.

:)

If God answers prayers how can He know everything about the future if he can make changes today which will ergo effect the future...?

Exactly.  Morals have developed over time, as I posted, and were not created by the bible, as you posted.

 :)

And like I said they can't just BBQ us for being rational now like before...

If their god really knew everything, he would know that all the people on earth would eventually become evil and he would have to kill them all.

So basically, the christian god created millions of people just to drown them later in a big flood.

Either their god CANNOT tell the future, or he kills for fun.  Which one is it?

 ;)

I know, I know. When your arguments start failing, you start twisting things. But that is the way of an immoral person, right:

:)

BADecker you aren't even trying anymore...

He lost this argument quite a while ago.  Now he posts only because he feels he needs to defend his dying faith.

Diarrhoea is the language of the brainwashed.

 :)

How come they are letting me post so much now but when I was trying to help someone with Stratum before it blocked me...ug...

There probably isn't any point blank scientific link like this. The reason is that science has proven that evolution is true. Of course, it isn't evolution science that has proven evolution true. Rather, it is political science - a science built around propagandizing - that has proven evolution true. In other words, if they say it enough, people start to believe it. So it's true to the believers. That's the only way evolution has even a little chance of being proven true.

:)

You're so cute.   :D

Kind of like herding all people into a building every week and telling them incredible stories over and over?  Eventually, people will start to believe.  That's how brainwashing works.

Luckily, without constant reinforcement, brainwashing fades.

You don't need to reprove the theory of evolution to everyone every week, do you?   That's why it is not brainwashing.

 :)

You think I have the devil inside me.  That's hate, buddy.

Most religious fools hate what they can't understand.

 ;)

Actually, waiting like that is about the best way to be. Then when it happens, you will be happily surprised rather than in a fearful panic.

:)

When what happens?  May I remind you, there is zero proof of your jesus or heaven or hell.

There is 100% proof that we will all die though.

 ;)

Where in the world did you get the info that suggests that He NEEDED to rest? He wasn't resting to replenish his being or something. He rested to enjoy the great creation that He had just made, something like a person enjoys his weekend after a week at the office.

:)

The difference, my friend, is I can take you to the Zoo or the Natural History museum and show you anthropological evidence for what Evolution talks about.

You can't even show me a reference to any one thing mentioned in the Bible.  Not one thing.  From then or now, there is nothing that proves or supports anything claimed in your fairy tales.

Even the "miracles" like Fatama are proven false in the very manner the story is told.  Three kids are given a vision that happens to look exactly like those people are told the vision would look by the church they go to.  The descriptions of the envisioned woman is the stereotype of the graven image of Mary that is plastered all over churches across the world.  

I can tear your religion to its foundation and show you innumerable ways the modern church doesn't even practice Christianity anymore.  

So what has he been doing for the last 2000 years? More vacation?  Enjoying the splendor of His work?  I am sure he is so proud...

Are you being purposely idiotic??  From the bible of course.

It took him six days to make your world - he couldn't make it in one.  He had to rest afterwards.  He wasn't relaxing/enjoying - he was RESTING.  

Did your priest tell you differently?  

What happens when your priest and the bible differ?  Which one does a fool believe?

Part of enjoying things that you know is to hide a little from yourself, just so that you can review it again by living it over.

In the case of God, He is coming from the direction of knowing everything. We barely have an understanding of knowing a little... compared with what is there to know. It is difficult for us to understand His point of view.

:)

And yet here we are expounding on the religion revolving around his Points of view...

 :o

So he KNEW that the world would be overrun by evil and he would have to drown them all in a great flood?

What a perverted asshole your god is.

 :-\

So he KNEW that adam would be lonely and he would have to make him a female?

Why didn't he create eve in the first place?  Why create a male/female of every creature except human?

There are so many examples of god not knowing things...

The most dangerous part of this is millions of people sit on their hands while all this bullshit goes on in the world waiting for Jesus to come save the day...

It isn't that morals have become better. It is that people were a lot healthier back then, because the earth hadn't had the time to go into so much entropy change yet. Because of this, people were full of energy and health. This allowed them the strength of "playing" with their morals in ways that we barely understand.

:)

Thread name should be changed to "The Treadmill of Trolling on the internet"

I like how you have such a glowing reputation on here too, BADecker...

Now where did you get that nonsense from?

Is that why 1 out of every 2 women died in childbirth?  Is that why everyone was dead by age 30?

Nowhere in the bible does it say people were healthier, so you must have heard this TOO from your priest.  Again, call bullshit when your priest feeds you this shit.  

 :-\

Well don't forget, we need to kill our kids for talking back, and can keep slaves, just not beat them to the point of blindness or mameness...

Hooray morals!

Well, actually, at the time before the Great Flood of Noah's day, the people were so far advanced beyond us (because of the natural health of a new earth), that they could invent all kinds of ways to be immoral that we haven't even thought about developing, yet. That's why God destroyed all but the 8 people on the ark of Noah. We are all descendants of Adam. But we are all descendants of Noah and his wife, too.

:)

So now you are posting that your god is NOT all knowing?

That conflicts directly with your statement that he WAS all knowing.

You can't keep your stories straight.

 ???

yeah unfortunately we have this crazy thing called written and dated history proving that the Sumerians were busy inventing glue around the time the Bible says the flood happened...maybe everyone was huffing elmer's and thats why they have a calf on the logo now...lol

You consider four billion years to be a new earth?  Through carbon dating, we know exactly how old the earth is.

Oh yeah, I forgot you people don't believe in dinosaurs either.

 :-\

Just like there is very little history beyond the ancient pottery and ancient writings that anything existed before our time. And there is whole lot of misinterpretation placed on the age of things.

:)

Carbon.  Dating.

 ::)

Look I will be the first one to admit there is certainly the possibility that these civilizations existed like Lemuria and Atlantis and all that, but you cannot waste time on such things which we cannot prove or observe through anthropology or archeology.  Everything the church denounces about science are things science has proven.  The church's denouncement is not proof against those proofs.  Even the tales of Lemuria and Atlantis have more historical credence than any one story in the Bible.  

Well, now you are getting a little far out. Consider that in the first chapter in the Bible, God made everything "after its kind." You don't have to go to the zoo. All you have to do is look at life around you. It is "after its kind." It isn't after evolution.

As far as churches practicing Christianity, there are many that don't practice it in a way that god would approve of. But you can see that right in the beginning of the Revelation in the New Testament in the Bible. Way back almost 2.000 years ago, Jesus told John to write this. So why would it be any different today?

:)

We have animals today that have clearly evolved from other animals.  

When your great flood happened, there were 2 dogs on board.  Today, how many hundreds of species of dogs do we have, that HUMANS guided through evolution?

Or will you ignore the fact the poodle and the great dane are different?

 :)

If you are being sincere here, I am finally beginning to understand you a little.

When a person is going through an activity, if he stops, he is at rest, even if he doesn't need to replenish his muscles because of the exercise.

God didn't need to create the universe in six days. He took that time because He was savoring it. Notice how He says wording to the effect of, "And God saw that everything He had made was good." Had He wanted to, He could have snapped his spiritual fingers and the whole thing would have come into existence instantly.

You simply don't understand what the almighty strength is like.

:)

Semantics.  The bible clearly says he took six days to make it, and he had to rest on the seventh day.  It even says people who work on the seventh day should be put to death.   :D

Your belief that he "savored" his work is an opinion your priest gave you - there is nothing in the bible that says anything like that.

Next?

 :)

Once again, you are confusing what the church is saying with what is real.  

None of the Gospels were written by the named people of each Gospel.  No one knows who wrote the Book of John.  Just another example of the old world church theory being proven wrong by modern understanding of actual history...

Not me my friend.   ;)  I don't do any business with people who believe in fairy tales. I actively tell them what fools they are.

Maybe I have convinced a few to break their brainwashing - I'll never know.  At least I'm doing moral work.  :)

The thing that God wanted was righteous and good people. He wanted people, not robots. That's why He gave them free will. So, what do you do when a project doesn't work out like you want?

God didn't destroy mankind entirely, though they had turned against Him for no reason. And, He is getting good results from that decision, right now. There are millions of people who are being saved. God is getting the results that He had wanted in the first place - lot's of friends who are worshiping Him for His great goodness.

:)

1) If I was all powerful, my project would work out, even with free will.

2) If I was all knowing, I would know they would become evil, even with free will.

Your god cannot see the future.  The bible has hundreds of examples where god reacts to something he did not expect.

 :-\

No, he didn't destroy mankind entirely, he just killed a few million for kicks. 

 :D

Entropy, my not so good man, entropy.  :)

Exactly.  Science is the answer to everything.   You can't even explain your god without using science.

 ;)

Actually I have another theory.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I believe in God.  

One thing I have found most likely is that Free Will is NOT something derived of God, but an attribute all animalsl, including humans, innately have.  

I think that everything God is said to do, and everything within the religious framework, was made to control free will because it was already there, and that is why God "got it wrong" so much.  Free Will is a variable not even God can equate....

And when you have to be spoon fed every little bit of information about how things work...

No wonder you are having such a hard time believing the easier religions, and have turned to the difficult religion of atheism.

:)

The mistake being made in this thread is that you get drawn in to discussing the 'why would . . .' of their god, which is akin to accepting the mythological character exists while arguing about what said mythological characters reasons for doing things might be.

Which is what theists want you to do.

How about just sticking to the fact that they are claiming the existence of an omnipotent super-being with no evidence other than human imagination supporting this assertion.

How is your 'God' any different from, say, Harry Potter?

By that I mean, what evidence is there that your 'God' is any more 'real' than the fictional storybook character called 'Harry Potter'?

I agree of course, we should not be drawn into superfluous discussion over sky ghosts and prophecy.   

You are simply wrong in this.  :)

You're a hypocrite!  Your priest has spoon fed you every opinion you have about your god.

That's part of the reason you are not all powerful. Your depth of understanding is lacking, greatly.

:)

Show me where in the bible it says that god savored his work, fool.

Easy to post things - more difficult to back them up with proof.  That's why you stick to your churches, for you need prove nothing to the brainwashed.

 ::)

Semantics.  Nothing in the universe is all powerful.

I think it's obvious to everyone but you that you are the one lacking basic understanding.

 :-\

Imagine that you have two people who are really bad people. And let's say that they are just about the same in the quality and quantity of bad stuff that they do. One of the guys dies at age 25, the other at age 50. In the resurrection, which of the two will thank God for death more? Won't it be the guy who died younger? After all, he will have 25 years less of sin to be punished for throughout all eternity in hell. Thank God He lets us die.

:)

http://imgur.com/TFLFF0u

next

How can you thank someone if you are dead?

Your scenario makes no sense.

 ???

What? You actually think science invented entropy?  :)

Science defined it, and you use that definition. 

 :)

Actually, if the atheist scientist sat down and thought about it, he would realize that he doesn't believe in free will. How's that? Because everything that science revolves around has to do with cause and effect. There is evidence for nothing else in this universe. And the more a scientist is a scientist, the more he delves into the reason fror things... cause and effect, action and reaction. This means that there is no pure random. This means that evolution, if it exists, is "pre-programmed." This means that a universe that could cause-and-effect things for billions of years had a much greater Great First Cause than a universe that is only 6,000 years old.

So you see, if you think about it, the whole scientific community has been built on faulty thinking... at least in the things that they present to us.

:)

If this is true, and there is no random, why wasn't your god able to see that mankind would become evil and he would have to drown them all?

Why couldn't your god see adam would be lonely?  How hard is it to see that?

 ;)

Actually science has completely disproven free will, if you follow Sam Harris's neuroscientific research...

The complexity of the universe is the evidence for God. And not only is it evidence, but it is evidence that comes closer to proof than any other evidence does for anything else, while at the same time, not being proof.

:)

The universe is not complex.  It started out as nothing but hydrogen.  Simplest thing you can have.  

That is evidence and proof there is no god.

 :)

Showed you already. But I'll re-show it, because this thread is growing by leaps and bounds, and you might have missed it.


:)

So it doesn't say anywhere he "savored" it - that was just an opinion your priest gave you.

Stick to your church, fool.   ;)

You are starting to understand where God is not, at least not entirely.  :)

Dude, I understand more than you about your god.  I have been brainwashed, and I have been set free.

You have yet to be set free.

 ;)

I know, who has time to read the whole thing?
:)

But you said the men died.  There is no proof (or even evidence of any kind) for resurrection, so we don't consider it.

Dead men cannot thank anyone.  

 ;)

But it was there long before science defined it.  :)

Do you understand what science is?  It doesn't invent - it understands.

Gravity existed for billions of years before we discovered it. 

The fact is, you need to use scientific principals to explain your fairy tales - so you have to believe in them a little.

:)

He was able. You and I will never have all the answers for the reasons why God does things... not in this life anyway. But, often God hides things from Himself because He wants to live through them as they happen, just to see and experience them something like we do. It's part of what gives Him enjoyment. Remember, it is your pushing Him away from yourself that will cause your destruction if you will not change.

:)

From the standpoint of man, this is correct, the no free will part, I mean.

:)

But he wasn't able!  You're making it up!

Your god creates a male/female of every animal, yet only creates a male human.

He then sees adam is lonely, and as an afterthought creates a female.

If he was able to see adam was going to be lonely, he would have created eve when he created adam.  Why would he remove a rib and damage adam in the process?

 :-\

And you are just the guy (or are you a gal?) who knows this for an absolute fact, right?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D :D

You don't have any imagination at all, do you?  :)

I know there is no evidence for god, yes.  It's called common sense.

Are you getting tired, BADecker?  You've made 9 pages of nonsense posts, proven nothing, you have EVERYONE posting against you, and yet you continue on with your "I am special" smile, posting nothing but your priest's opinion on the bible.

You remind me a lot of dank - another fool with a damaged mind for with there is no arguing.  

That's what faith is all about, be it my religion of Christianity, or your religion of atheism.  :)

Ah, so your interpretations of the bible are based on imagination.  Well, my arguments are based on science and fact.

You lose.  

 :-\

There is no faith required to be an atheist.  We believe in facts.

 :)

Well, isn't that what speaking is all about? We wouldn't be speaking back and forth if we didn't have something of a similar language, right? So, what of gravity or other scientific terms. We use whatever language we understand to express it.

:)

You wouldn't be using science words such as "entropy" unless you actually believed in the science behind it.

So I'm curious, where in science do you stop believing in the facts, and start believing in Harry Potter?

If your arguments are based on science and fact, it is by accident, because you don't know any of it.

:)

The only atheistic fact that there is, is that you believe superficially that atheism exists. Everything inside atheism is understood by faith.

:)

Yet I continue to be right, as usual.  You can't disprove any of my facts any more than you can prove any of your beliefs.

I think you need to stick to your church where people will believe anything you say.  Here, on a bitcoin forum, you aren't doing too well.

 :-\

More nonsense.  I don't need to have faith when I have science.  Science is what will happen.  Faith is what you hope will happen.

 ;)

Entropy started immediately upon sin coming into the world. Using the word "entropy" is a lot easier than trying to explain it every time I want to talk about it. Nothing better to do than play bantering games?

:)

Entropy started at the universe's creation - the Big Bang.  Your idea of good vs bad had nothing to do with it.

 ::)

Here's where you are wrong in this. If something is proven, then it is a fact and not a belief. Because of this, I will never be able to prove any of my beliefs, not if I want to keep them as beliefs. And I DO want to keep them as beliefs, because it is by faith that I am saved.

I can guess about what your facts might be, but until you show me some, I can't even attempt to disprove them. And you can't show me any of your facts, because you don't have any. Everything you have is perceived through faith, faith in your atheistic religion.

:)

Nonsense.  I don't have faith - I have science.  I know for a fact that if I step off a cliff, gravity will pull me down.  You know it too.   ;)

That's the difference between you and me.  I rely on facts - you rely on Harry Potter for your morals.

 :)

That stepping off a cliff thing was known long before science as we know it came into being.  :)

No it wasn't.  Science has always existed.  The first time a Neanderthal looked up at the sky and saw a star, that was science.


We've had science for tens of thousands of years.

If no one saw the first caveman fall off a cliff, no one would know NOT to do that.  Observation. 

 ;)

I have to thank you Badecker.  I just completed work I thought would take me all day tomorrow (today) to do.  While I've been chatting with you, I've been working in my other monitor.  The conversation has kept me awake and alert and it's been a very productive night for me!

So while you are clearly a brainwashed idiot, for me tonight you've been useful.  Thanks!  :)

Don't worry BADecker. Dank will be along shortly backing you up with his golden nuggets of eternal wisdom.

Actually, maybe the law has caught up with dank - he hasn't posted in days.  Hopefully I am right.   :)

Here is a PRIME example of the "Shit Slinging Brand Atheist"

I posted the "Treadmill of Atheism" to a bunch of atheist, including the Atheism group on Google Plus. And this morning I noticed basically a response video, though it is not labeled as such.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hltr8WM8BVo

First I want to say that I think everyone should have the right to get married and I don't see what religion has to do with Marriage. That being said. This guy brings up the Gay rights court cases that have been happening recently, and says that in the past the only reason they didn't legalize gay marriage was "tradition". That is him shitting in his hand. Then he proceeds to sling that shit, by generalizing ALL religions as "Tradition" and all tradition as "Bad".

The supreme court justices that stalled gay marriage were largely Catholic, but Atheists don't actually know enough about this stuff to see the difference.

And secondly, WESTERN MEDICINE IS A TRADITION, having a court system is tradition, etc. Atheists need to stop acting like all traditions are bad. PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank you.

I don't think anyone is making blanket statements here. 

At least from my perspective, there is a much more pointed approach against the RELIGIOSITY of religion.  No one has any issue with any behavior, or tradition, as you call it, that may have come about incidentally to religion.  But it is important that we distinguish what is of the church and of mankind's own derivation that was done in the name of the church because not doing so at the time would have resulted in a rather crispy ending. 

I am not sure exactly what specific traditions you speak of, but for the most part any evidently theologically rooted traditions would only be so because not that long ago people were legally killed for coming up with something beneficial and not giving glory to the Highest (whispers pile of dog shit [sorry had to])
Admittedly I did not watch the video, so I apologize if it covers the traditions in question.  But maybe you can clarify in conversation and we can go from there?

Also, to the gays and marriage:  Do not let the theist's own what the State has to give you license to do.  To me this delusion about the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution is one of the biggest pieces of proof that religion is and always has been nothing more than a management tool of the State.  It is of the church, but literally every aspect of it that makes it binding is legal State submitted paperwork.  You make some promise in front of poor schmuck family members who could care less and it was ultimately the State, not the church, who made it so easy to divorce, which to me nullifies the whole sanctified nature of marriage.  Something sacred should not be able to be so easily undone.

And if being gay is so natural, than shut the fuck up and stop begging for attention.  You are queer, we get it.  Much like the blacks, everyone else is over it except those crying persecution.  You are so busy crying with your eyes tightly shut you don't even realize the rest of the world has moved on.  It doesn't help that while your eyes are closed politicians and hate mongerers are whispering in your ears about how much people hate you, but that doesn't make it any more true!

Sorry for the rant, but look forward to hearing from you.

I guess you must be one (and only one) that has clicked on his thumbs down count. :D

Okay I watched the video.  I liked it.  Don't think I really disagree with anything he said...

Why Atheism is Failing

Yesterday I posted an argument for the Atheists, as I said, I think the Christians are the ones with the worst arguments here, but the Atheists should be able to smack them down no problem. So since I want to see all of this move forward, I am going to present you with some arguments to beat the Christians.

Presup

1. The same as yesterday, appeal outside your own reasoning by appealing to the reasoning of other people and the work of people before you.

2. Pick an absolute. Like Lobsters, ask the Atheist "Why are Lobsters Illegal to over fish in Florida, why did God make it that way" They will most likely respond confused, then you tell them that it is for conservation purposes to make sure lobsters exist in the future. Then you proceed from there asking them why God did different things with Lobsters, and at this point, they are no longer in the presup argument.

GO WIN NOW.

Pascal's Wager

This one only needs 1.

1. The Christians say "Well, what if God is real, it's better to believe than to not, just in case. And if it's not true, I believed something for no reason and who cares?" the way you respond to this is by saying that is the religions of Abraham one day aren't the most popular, people could hunt down all the circumcised people and kill them, and you don't want to put your descendants through that, so might as well not be Abrahamic.

GO WIN NOW.

Evolution

1. The Christian says that "no one has ever seen change over time, and we will not live long enough to ourselves". SHOW THEM FOSSILS. Look up "Whale Wolf Transition Fossil" and I am sure you will find something you can point to and show "This used to live on land, now it is in the water." Then show them the Fossil Record of Humans and things that we passed down like fire and dream herbs, so that they can see that these people existed in a timeline and not at the same time.
2. The Christians say "The Bible has a table of lineage, and it tells me that from Adam to Jesus there were only enough Generations for approximately 6,000 years". All the Atheist has to do is look up "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" and show them things like Jericho 10,000 vs 6,000 BC and Bethlehem and all that.

3. The Christian says "There is no mechanism for Evolution". Ask them how they would prepare to go to Alaska, then ask them how they would prepare to go to Mexico. Then ask them if they think they had kids that grew up in there, if they think that kid might have kids with people there. Then ask if they think those kids will be different from the other kids there, and if they are different from the kids in the original country, There is your mechanism.

GO WIN NOW.

Cosmological

You guys seem to have forgotten this one, but you always had an argument for it. When they say "The universe had a beginning, therefor a creator" you say "What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster?". That is WHY he was invented.

He doesn't even know what he is saying. We "Traditionally" go to court to decide things. He (all in one video) talks about how AWESOME the tradition of court is, then says ALL tradition is bad. He is an idiot.

I never thumbs down anyone, but since you brought it to my attention I just went and did and there are at least 2 now.

I keep that one in my fav quote list, thank you!

 ;D

So I posted the Atheist Treadmill thing, and on a forum an Atheist kinda got angry with me. Then he realized I was not arguing for Christianity, so he paused for a moment and was talking casually about the Matt Dillahunty, Sye Ten debate with me. I told him that I don't think Sye Ten has a single brain cell in his head, but Matt Dillahinty still got caught in the presup, so it wasn't a clear win.

Then he said he would debate me, and I went ahead and sent something to him, because I am pretty sure a video debate would just devolve into insults since he is defending himself against the things I said, and I only ever said anything about "Shit Slinging Atheists" so he must feel like that fits him, or he would not have tried to defend against it. Everyone knows there are atheists that don't know what they are talking about that just hate religion, they are shit slingers. You don't have to identify with them if you are Atheist, they are just a group of people that don't understand what they are fighting.

But anyways.

I send him the thing explaining my Gods, and instead of being able to prove me wrong he retreats to "Those are lower case gods, not God". And I told him that things change over time, for example, "Atheos" was the original word for "Atheist", and it referred to people who did not believe in the popular Gods like Zeus. So in Greek times, this was a reference to Jews and Christians, because the Greeks worshiped the planets. They called Jupiter "Zeus" and they called History"Clio" and they called tutors "Mentor", We still use the word "Mentor" today to explain how someone is embodying the spirit of helping us learn.

So I tell him this, and he gets all twisted, saying that "Atheists can't have Gods" and I had to explain to him that the only reason I was putting it in historical context, was because he was saying that Gods can only be "All Powerful, All Knowing sky men".

And I tried to tell him that I was not trying to say that modern Christians are Atheists, I was saying that the word Atheist comes from Atheos which came from Christians, who worshiped a man. Not Gods like the Greeks. So the Greeks called them "Atheos".

Then he told me I had not told him what my God was, and never gave him a definition. So I explained to him how the seasons move with the planets and the plants are planted and harvested based on those changes. Ancient people called those Gods, and I am calling them Gods.

Then I told him to stop being a Christian, because only Christians, Jews and Muslims think God is an all powerful all knowing being. And most of the world lives in China and India, so MOST OF THE WORLD doesn't even agree with the idea of the Christian God.

And he won't give it up. He says he is Atheist, but he will only accept an all powerful, all knowing sky daddy. Doesn't that make you Christian?

Bill Nye the government science guy. 

The atheist community on YouTube ticks me off.  DarkMatter2525 makes a series of great animations lampooning religion and then he makes a video defending the NSA smh.  I wish the atheist community would grow some balls and stop worshiping at the altar of the state.   

Family Guy tends to sum up religion well.  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNKcGXri98Y

The problem with the atheism religion is, it is not the truth, any more than any other religion expresses the complete truth.

In fact, the fact that atheism denies that there is a god is a reason that it is destroying itself, for one major reason. That reason is that anyone who is willing to certify that there is no god, is by that certification setting himself up as god, just by making a certification like that.

When a god says that there is no god, that is self destruction.

:)

Except, of course, atheism isn't a religion any more than 'off' is a tv channel.

You are the theist, the one who is proposing the existence of something, your supreme all-powerful deity.

We, the atheist, say you have no evidence that would justify considering your claim as even reasonable, let alone valid. So, no, we don't assert "there is no god", we assert, "you, the theist, have no evidence that would warrant considering your extraordinary claim as even plausible, let alone likely".

Or are you going to continue being dishonest about this?

ATHEISM:
1 archaic :  ungodliness, wickedness
2
     a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity
     b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Who is being dishonest now?  Disbelief is still a belief. You are still making conclusions that there is no god with a complete lack of evidence in either direction. I think what you are defining is whats called agnostic.

Agnostic:
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Full definition:
1:  a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :  one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2:  a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?ref=dictionary&word=agnostic#

No it isn't. You are either failing to grasp the concept or you are intentionally misrepresenting it.

Disbelief or lack of belief is not the same as having a belief.

Otherwise, in your reality, I am also just as required to furnish you with evidence of the lack of invisible pink unicorn angels who protect us from invisible blue gremlins at all hours of the day. Otherwise, according to you, the claim towards the existence of said unicorns and gremlins is equally as valid as my disbelief in same because neither side can offer evidence towards or against.

Theists assert the existence of something, they are the ones needing to justify their assertion with reasonable evidence, which they do not have, therefore, we atheists dismiss their claim as having insufficient evidence or reason to be worthy of consideration.

That is not the same as you requiring that we atheists offer up evidence to prove the non-existence of something. That is asinine.

So you are arguing with Websters dictionary now? Polarizing your belief to an opposite doesn't magically make it not a belief.

No, I quoted another source but you, however, also happened to deviously misrepresent what yours actually meant.

You may have quoted Merriam-Webster regarding the word 'Atheism', but it is you who falsely asserted the claim, "Disbelief is still a belief".

Merriam-Webster didn't say that, you did.


Which is utterly different from your claim that Disbelief is still a belief, when it is actually a lack of belief, or an inability to believe.

So, as I said, theists assert the existence of something for which they have no evidence. It is not down to the atheist to do anything more than to point out the fact that theists have no evidence for their assertion.

Your argument about disbelief is a red herring. You are still misrepresenting the definition of atheism. Declaring the existence or non  existence of anything requires a conclusion, and with no evidence to support it either way this is called a belief. I am simply holding you to the same standard you hold theists. You are defining agnosticism, not atheism, which is the BELIEF there is no god.  

 British Dictionary definitions for dis-
(would have used Websters but they apparently don't do word prefixes)
dis-1 prefix
1. indicating reversal: disconnect, disembark
2. indicating negation, lack, or deprivation: dissimilar, distrust, disgrace
3. indicating removal or release: disembowel, disburden
4. expressing intensive force: dissever

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dis-?s=t&path=/

This is the point in the debate where I wonder out loud if your ignorance is wilful. I can handle plain ol' lack-of-education-on-the-subject ignorance, it's the I-refuse-to-consider-that-I-may-be-mistaken brand of ignorance I despise.

You continue to ignore the fact that you are the one claiming 'disbelief' is 'just another type of belief'. It is you who seeks to rewrite and reinterpret the meaning of a word that clearly does not mean what you want it to.

Let's break it down for you *real* simple:

+1 = Belief that there is evidence for the existence of an omnipotent super-being, a 'God'.

-1 = Belief that there is evidence against the existence of an ominpotent super-being, a 'God'.


Atheism on that scale = 0

That there is no objective evidence FOR the existence of an omnipotent super-being, a 'God'.

So, with regards to your
The Atheist conclusion is not derived from the "There is no God" assertion, it is derived from the "Your theist assertion lacks any objective evidence" position.

Which is correct a conclusion to reach because it does not require the invocation of the paranormal or 'ooky and spooky' made-up-stuff(tm), it simply examines the claim being made by theism and draws the, absolutely correct conclusion, that the assertion theists make is utterly devoid of evidence and, you know, looks *exactly* like it has just been dreamed up in human imagination and asserted to be true.

Because that is *exactly* what theism is.

Here is another explanation of one of the great 3 evidences for God. This explanation is about the idea of cause and effect, action and reaction. Said another way, there is no pure random.

Be patient, and read the whole thing, even if you don't like to look at an argument that offers strong evidence for God. Here goes.

----------

When we talk about probability (randomness), we show that we are speaking from a position of not knowing. For example. When one flips a coin, what are the odds it will land heads, and what are the odds it will land tails? Over time, with many tosses of the coin, we find that the answer is very close to 50% both ways.

Why don't we know ahead of time what the result will be each time? Because we are unable to measure all the forces acting on the coin sufficiently well to make an absolute prediction. Now, I understand that there are some few people who have practiced so much that they can tell the outcome almost every time. But the point that I am making is, there is no easy way to measure all the forces acting on the coin so that we can predict accurately.

This is what OUR random is. It really isn't random. What it is, is our weakness in knowing, our inability to observe. In the case of the flipped coin, it is our weakness in knowing all the forces acting on the coin.

Essentially, there is NO pure random.

----------

Next...

Consider the common (American) game of "Pool" (the billiards sport). Once in awhile a player is able to hit the cue ball, which hits a second ball, which hits a third ball, which taps a fourth ball into a pocket. Predicting 4 balls in this fashion isn't easy. What about 5, or 6, or 7 balls in a sequence shot like this?

The point? Whatever makes cause and effect work in nature, has produced untold numbers of sequence shots in subatomic particles, with untold numbers of length of sequences, including cross shots (where more than one ball act on another), which have produced all kinds of highly complex materials and operations of nature, possibly the greatest of these being life itself.

The point? Since we don't have the ability to track more than a tiny, tiny percent of these forces, if we want to understand what's going on, we need to use probability. So, what are the odds that things would work out as well as they have, universally, through cause and effect of these HUGE numbers of sequences and cross sequences?

----------

Everything in nature acts according to the action and reaction principle... cause and effect. Science has no evidence of anything that happens by accident, randomly; everything that we call random activity exists ONLY because we are so extremely limited in our methods of observation, that we can't track the billions upon billions of action-reaction operations in the universe around us.

Is there mathematics that shows the existence of pure random activity? If there is, it lies in realms of quantum mechanics where other math shows that pure random does NOT exist.

----------

Whatever started all the cause and effect, action and reaction, that produced all the fantastically marvelous things found in nature, and life itself, IS A FANTASTICALLY GREAT GOD, whatever this God might be.

If God is the Big Bang, or if God is simply nature itself, or if God is one of the gods of one of the various religions, whatever God is, GOD IS EXCEEDINGLY GREAT, beyond understanding.

And here is a very interesting point. The god behind modern science is extremely greater than the Christian God. It all has to do with action and reaction, cause and effect. Here's what I mean.

Modern science suggests that the universe is 13 to 14 billion years old. The Bible suggests that the earth is 6,000 to an absolute maximum of 25,000 years old. What of it? Here's what.

A good pool player might be able to hit the cue ball with such precision that it hits a second ball that hits a third ball that taps a fourth ball into a corner pocket.

The God of the Christians hit some "cue balls" way back 6,000 to 25,000 years ago that knocked this whole fantastic universe into place today. Look around yourself at nature, at life, at human emotion, and imagine how great Someone has to be to hit the "cue balls" of the Beginning so that we wind up with all the marvels that we have today.

And if the God of the Christians is great, THE GOD OF MODERN SCIENCE IS FAR GREATER! Why? Because there are COUNTLESS more action-reaction/cause-effect happenings over 13 to 14 billion years than over 6,000 to 25,000 years. And the Big Bang(?) God shot was SOOOOO exceedingly good that it STILL produced what we have today, all the marvels of nature, and the universe, and life, and emotion in people, and human thought, and even scientific investigation by man, even though it had countless MORE numbers of action-reaction, cause-effect activities that the gods of any of the religions.

----------

All you scientific atheists, you are simply denying a Great God, One you are making way stronger than any god of any religion, simply by proving all your scientific theories and hypotheses.

Now, you may not like me. You might even hate me for showing you this. And you certainly have the ability to talk all around what I say. But one thing stands HERE as FACT, even if I have stated it poorly. As things stand in science right now, THERE IS GREAT STRENGTH IN THIS ARGUMENT that I have just shown you.

God exists, whomever/whatever he/she/it might be!

:)

And there we have it, further proof of the inane arguments used by theists to desperately claw their way out of the hole they keep being shown to be in, give 'em God, any God, for God's sake!!!!1111!1!eleventy!!1!

So now you want to turn an event (the big bang) into God?

Are you even capable of recognising the desperation in your position? You can call anything you want God, knock yourself out, it still doesn't leave you doing anything more than making-shit-up(tm).

What if I want to call The Universe 'Colin' and declare it to be evidence of 13-Dimensional super-being's school science project?

We can all play that game, it's called "Using your imagination". But you don't get it stick it in a medium-sized Hadron Collider and conduct experiments on it, that's reserved for things which actually exist outside of human imagination.

Call the universe "Colin" if you want. That's not what I am talking about.

The idea of God has to do with something greater than man. If cause and effect had only produced plants and animal, but no creature that could truly feel emotion, or truly reason, then there might be a slight point to atheism. And, of course, then it wouldn't matter at all. 'Cause nobody would be around to consider it.

But since the idea of God is talking about something that is greater than the reasoning of man, greater than the emotions of man, greater than the scientific thinking of man, because it produced all these things, and even produced man, through cause and effect in an extremely difficult and complex process, it fits the definition of God.

But, you are welcome to continue to call yourself ignorant if you so desire.

:)

Interesting point of no true random.
I have the choice to pick up a ball or not pick up a ball. You cannot predict my choice because it is my random choice. Or cannot my choice be truly random?

Why do you pick up or not pick up the ball?

Let's say that in this case, there is some great need to do it while, at the same time, there is another great need to not do it. The needs are causes.

In the brain, which neurons fire and which don't? Which fire with more strength? What is the chemical memory reason that is behind the stronger firings? What contribution did the food that you ate play, because you happened to eat fish today, which strengthened brain activity? What about the way a mild allergy "tickles" your nose, weakly, in a subconscious way?

In other words, the stimuli are the cause that lead you into making a decision that you feel is your random choice, even though you don't know anything about which stimuli are acting in what way on you.

If you were plugged into some gigantic supercomputer that was programmed to read all the stimuli, would it not be able to predict your decision?

All of the stimuli were caused by other stimuli that caused them. And those by others, and those by others. This goes all the way back to the beginning, whatever/whenever that is/was. There is no random. There might have been in whatever started the whole universe running in the first place (Big Bang? God?).

:)

So are you saying I have no freewill to pick up that ball example randomly?

I, personally, am not saying that. Rather, science is.

Since all science involves cause and effect, action and reaction, it is the scientists who are saying it. If science had a method for complete emotion, thought, consciousness, conscience, soul, spirit, etc., analysis, then we might find that there is random, somehow.

Up to this point, most science suggests or says that the things that we interpret as the list that I mentioned above, are only biochemical reactions in our brain and nervous systems, etc.  If that is indeed all it is, then everything is cause and effect. There is no random. We feel like we made the choice. But we were really forced into it by all kinds of stimuli.

:)

The fact that we seldom hear about pure random from a scientific standpoint, leads me to suspect that there is some kind of conspiracy among the scientific community, or the political community that influences them. After all, you can go to school and learn about all kinds of things of science. You can learn about probability and random. The idea of pure random probably comes up in class. But why isn't it a major topic?

Personally, I think it has been forced into the background because it would upset a lot of things in science. People just don't want to hear that they are NOT in control of their lives... that maybe their whole lives are already set in stone, like words on the pages of a book. Who wants to hear that? But that is what science suggests, behind the scenes.

:)

The thing that is important about this is that, the thing that started this whole universe to operate in the cause and effect way that it operates, is the same thing that might be wanting us to look for the source of the cause and effect. Why? Because we have the urge and desire to find out about everything. It is built right into us.

One of the greatest urges we have is the desire to find out about the beginning. That's the reason science spends millions of dollars to determine what their Big Bang was like. The Big Bang God (or whatever God) that started this whole thing, placed into our hearts and minds, from the beginning of it all, right down to the present through cause and effect, the desire to find out about him/her/it.

:)

  ...and just as you examine the claims of theists I am critically examining your claims. I argue you are the one being willfully ignorant in your rabid anti-religious fervor. I understand your obsession with demanding proof of the unprovable. All I am asking of you is, since you declare the absence of God the DEFINITION OF ATHEISM, what evidence do you present God doesn't exist? I am not arguing God is real I am asking you to provide evidence for your conclusion that God does not exist. Simple as that. You can't? That is a BELIEF. Your argument has no more authority than mine because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. NO EVIDENCE + CONCLUSION = BELIEF regardless of how you mutilate the English language to fit your ideology.

What is it about theism that encourages so much dishonesty?

I am not declaring there to be evidence of the absence of God any more than I would bother declaring there to be evidence of the absence of invisible pink unicorns or an infinite number of variations of same.

Atheism rejects the theist assertion, because the assertion is based on nothing other than wild imagination. Atheists also reject the invisible pink unicorn assertion, too.

*That* is the evidence for rejecting the assertion, the fact that the assertion concerned is without evidence.


But, then, I guess you're just going to keep on ignoring the cold hard fact that rejecting a baseless assertion FOR BEING BASELESS, is all that is required and that there is absolutely no need to seek evidence of the absence of a God when the assertion for the existence of a God is BASELESS.

Funny how the arguments of others require evidence, but your argument does not because pink unicorns. You have an imaginary conclusion too, that there is no God. You have no evidence yet some how the same standard does not apply to your dogmas, only the dogmas of others. Your conclusion that there is no God is just as idiotic as declaring that there is a God, because the FACT is, no one knows for sure what is true regardless of how sure you are of your beliefs.

I won't pitch in to the arguments how disbelief in god/unicorns is in fact a belief or not, but I reading that wrong thing unopposed:
There most definitely IS pure random. You talk so much about science, you can't simply stop with the views of the 19th century, when determinism was a plausible assumption. Pure random is everywhere in Quantum Mechanics, and Bell's inequality precludes any "hidden variables". While shocking to early 20th century physicists, we had plenty of time to accept that.
Combined with Chaos Theory, from later last century, determinism can't even be considered globally on a macroscopic scale.
And it should be common knowledge, especially someone interested in cryptography and Bitcoin should know where true random exists and where not.
Ok, so you've about QM, now read about it to understand how you were wrong.
Besides that this "cue ball player", or "demon" as called by Laplace who first formulated this line of thought, has been proven impossible by both QM and Chaos Theory, there is...

..Ouch. Young-earth-creationist? Please stop insulting the vast majority of Christians and their intelligence, by calling this small god of yours the "God of the Christians"! Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, these churches don't show the willful obscurantism, the weird insistence of a god that, as you pointed out so well, would be an awfully small god, a god that is much smaller than the universe we can see. The medieval bishop who counted and extrapolated some years in the Bible to get your estimation was likely no small mind, he worked with the little he had in his system of reference, without knowing of contrarian evidence. Then scientists, these great minds, watched the earth and her geology, the stars and the universe. Some had religions, others not, but they opened their eyes and saw an earth that was vastly older, a universe far greater than they had imagined.

And then later came some small minds, who were scared by greatness, scared by anything that could be larger than them. They shut their eyes and created fundamentalism, started cults in which they forbade their adherents to use their eyes and minds. You can simply count the years of tree rings for far longer than any date of their "flood", count the years of the strata in ice cores far longer than your "absolute maximum" age. Why do you want to believe in a god that is that small, that you are forbidden to even count, much less look at the stars, for fear that you could cross some arbitrary limits made by very small minds?

Oh come off it. Anybody who has looked at quantum mechanics in detail sees that QM is a compilation of every idea and theory in every way. It can be used to predict anything, and the opposite of anything.

The real reason for QM is, to give people ideas about the directions in which they want to go. The only other use it might have is to combine the belief of people in a direction - because, as QM suggests, it is the belief/faith of people that causes things to happen - so that the thing that they believe actually comes into existence.

QM is a tool. Mathematics is a tool. They are languages that we use to express the universe to ourselves. And that's okay, as long as we don't start using them to prove all kinds of things that don't exist into existence.

No combined belief of the people is ever going to overcome the believing that God does. People will only find themselves fighting against God.

If someone wants to use QM to prove that there is no pure random, he can do it just the same as he can use it to prove that pure random exists.

:)

No one would "see" that, if they had looked at QM even on the trivial level, much less "in detail", and it's obvious you never did. Bell's inequality is a simple statement, and the experiments have given a simple answer. You might not like it, if you bothered to understand it, but there is no belief neccesary. A theory is vindicated by experiment, not faith and beliefs.

This is a hilarious statement from an Atheist. Thank you for dancing for me and publicly admitting your hypocrisy by arguing against your own point.

P.S. I never said this: "there is absolutely no need to seek evidence of the absence of a God"
I just said you had no evidence. You don't get to speak for me sorry.

Hmm that was a bit too weak lol

Genesis 1:16 Symbolic
The sun is the light that does rule over the day, moon is the light in the night scientifically its reflecting light still more less true

Psalms: Still correct the earths orbit is firmly fixed

Anyways must be better arguments than that

LOL I do find it amusing when rock-solid objective reasoning meets wet and sloppy theist whining. It's like you lot have an in-built tantrum-trigger whereby you immediately resort to having to ignore the argument you cannot counter by dishonestly claiming flawed reasoning without actually being able to state what that flawed reasoning is. You might as well have finished that by stamping your feet and screaming, "I know you are, but what am I?"


I didn't say you said that. Try wiping the spittle flecks off your monitor and actually reading the assertion clearly.

You claim that, because atheists do not have evidence to prove the absence of a God, the atheist position is equally based on belief and I, correctly, pointed out that there is no need to seek for evidence of the absence of a God if the assertion being made for the existence of a God is baseless.

Come on now, stop being so patently dishonest in this discussion, you're not very good at it and anybody outside the confines of their own theist conditioning can clearly see the difference between the well-reasoned atheist position and your mangling of semantics coupled with blatantly misrepresenting my argument and then arguing against your own forced interpretation of it.

Actually, come to think of it, mangling semantics and forcing your own misrepresentation and interpretation of what has been said is pretty much what theism is all about, isn't it?

Ah, so if you shout louder than everyone else, that makes it true?

I've already proven god doesn't exist.  That fact you don't understand it shows your lack of intelligence, nothing else.

:)

I love how you ASSUME I am a theist because I point out the flaws in your logic, because if I don't agree with you well then OBVIOUSLY I agree with the opposing viewpoint right?

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
I don't have to agree with either position to point out the flaws in your argument.

I am not a fan of anyone atheist/theist who goes around pretending as if they know better than anyone else and telling people what they should believe. You can claim I am "misrepresenting" your argument all day and it doesn't make it reality. What you call me misrepresenting your argument is me pointing out the flaws in your bias application of logic.

You are willing to argue that it is ok to conclude there is no God because there is no evidence. Your point is there is no evidence, therefore a conclusion based on facts is IMPOSSIBLE. Just as theists have zero evidence of the existence of God, you have zero evidence that God does not exist. You are unwilling to apply the same logic to points that you disagree with, and your bias is quite clear for everyone to see no matter how many times you say I am a dishonest theist misrepresenting you.


So you didn't say this and then attribute it to my position? I am pretty sure you did, because I am looking at it right now.

Oh come on, please, surely you are yanking my chain, nobody could be this determinedly dense and still operate a computer keyboard!

Ok, one last time, let me walk you through it step by step:

1. You say that the atheist assertion is false because it would require evidence against the existence of a God - This I explicitly attribute to you because this is what you state as your position in the debate, yes?

2. I respond that we, the atheists, do not need evidence to prove the non-existence of God because the theist assertion is grossly flawed and lacking any evidence or objectively reasoning. - This is my response to your position, I did not attribute it to you, I responded with it to your argument that atheism was just as unfounded as theism, are you still with me here?

It is akin to asserting the existence of [insert fanciful mythological creature here] by way of "Because I say it exists then it does", and having no evidence to support any aspect of this claim. Would you then require those who reject said claim of the existence of [insert fanciful mythological creature here], to have to come up with actual evidence to prove that said creature didn't exist?

OR,

Would you accept that it is reasonable to reject the assertion on the grounds that it is based on an arbitrary declaration and is lacking any evidence to support it?

I look forward to your answer to this question.

You are offering me a false dichotomy under which your argument is fulfilled regardless which one of your artificially limited choices I choose.

1. No, you say I say this. You don't get to speak for me. I never once said atheism is false. I said there is no evidence to support the claim of there being no God.

2. You seem unable to recognise the completely circular logic of your argument.
" the atheists, do not need evidence to prove the non-existence of God because the theist assertion is grossly flawed and lacking any evidence or objectively reasoning." HOW is it flawed? So far your only evidence to me is that there is no evidence. Declaring it illogical is still your opinion, and I am waiting for any additional evidence to support this claim but see none. Your only standard of evidence, is that there is no evidence.

My entire argument consists of this: "There is no proof." No proof for your argument, or for the opposing dialectic of which you assume that I represent.

You are the one declaring atheism to be both an assertion that there is no God AND also a belief:


You hold atheism to be asserting "There is no God" without any proof to demonstrate the absence of said deity, leading you to then state that atheism is, therefore, just as much a belief as theism.

I demonstrate that, no, atheism does not require the assertion "There is no God", it merely needs to employ the factual counter to the theist assertion, "There is no evidence to support the claimed existence of God"

No.Evidence.Of.The.Absence.Of.God.Needed.

Then please accept my apologies for assuming you to be a theist although, to be honest, you do debate like one when you keep ignoring the fact that the atheist assertion is not a belief because it doesn't need to offer the polar opposite of the theist position, it simply needs to dismiss the theist assertion on the basis of what is know about the the theist assertion, namely, that it is as baseless as a belief in any mythical character.

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF ATHEISM - THE POLAR OPPOSITE OF THEISM
You can have whatever dogmas you like, but you don't get to redefine words sorry.

This would be true if I were trying to argue God exists, but I am not. This is your mistake. I am arguing theists as well as atheists HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE for either argument.

And this is where your insistence that atheism is the polar opposite of theism fails because, infact, it is the rejection of theism, a lack of belief, not the belief towards the opposite.

What you are basing your 'polar opposite' argument on would be Theism v Anti-Theism.

An opposite 'belief' would be a belief based on the same principles as those constructing the theist assertion when, as I keep having to point out to you, atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion on the principle that it is baseless.

An opposite 'belief' would be the belief that there was no God and that belief would have to be the sole factor in the assertion in order to make it the polar opposite of theist belief.

Rejecting an assertion on the basis it is poorly constructed is not the same as rejecting it on the grounds of opposing it.

Your logic is flawed. What you are proposing is a logical fallacy called anArgument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). This is basically the whole "Russel's Teapot"/"Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument. Although you are correct in saying that there isn't any proof that god does NOT exist, this doesn't make each side of the argument equally valid.

If this was the case then anyone could say anything at all, and then could claim that what they said was true because it can't be proven false. I could say for instance, that my electric car was powered by a pack of invisible flying huskies, that cannot be detected with any known scientific apparatus. Such a claim would rightly be ridiculed by most people as it lacks any form of evidence, even though it cannot be proven false.

Ask yourself this, and you may be able to see the flaw in your logic: Do you believe every single thing that anyone tells you? If not, why not?

All right. So we can't prove that God exists, or that He doesn't exist.

The evidence in favor of God is far greater than anything else that makes sense.

There is nothing (certainly not evolution) that can explain the diversity of life on earth along with the complexity of the universe.

The laws of probability along with the apparent entropy show that evolution is absolutely impossible with finality in any way we can formulate it.

The things that evolution scientists are interpreting as evolution are simply a form of complex programming.

The point is, Whomever or Whatever programmed this whole thing, is, by definition of the word, God. And He/She/It isn't simply God, but rather GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY, shown simply because of how great His creation is!

:)

Rejecting that a light bulb is off is by definition a proclamation that it is not on. Your conclusion is by definition at the exclusion of the opposing view point. You are now taking quite wide liberties with definitions of words and sentence structure of the English language, even contradicting your own statements. Your conclusion with complete lack of evidence is not substantiated. I understand your argument for burden of proof, but THAT EQUALLY APPLIES TO YOUR STANCE. Your premise is God does not exist. I argue you can not possibly have evidence for this. You claim you need no proof because it is self evident (sound like theists much?) As a person with no stake in either argument, I am quite comfortable pointing out your circular logic in this regard.

That is some quite impressive mental gymnastics you are doing there to justify your bias. Saying you reject something "on the principal that it is baseless" is not the same as actually stating an actual principal. If that is your standard of evidence we could sit here making conclusions ALL DAY about things we couldn't possibly have a clue about, and just chock up any doubts to being wrong because they are "baseless", even though there is no evidence one way or the other. Do aliens exist? Yes? No? How would we even begin to know? Making conclusions SOLELY on the lack of evidence is flawed and a fallacy.

I completely reject the first statement here because it is nothing but back flips with a complete lack of sense or logic. This is you again offering a false dichotomy stating what you wish a definition of words were, not what they actually are. You are confusing evidence for having a belief, with the ability to have a belief, as if you can not make a conclusion that is a belief unless belief alone is your only motivation. BTW, tell me, how does one reject an idea on the grounds of opposing it? That is not evidence, or even logic. That is basically you saying you reject it because you reject it.

Lack of evidence + conclusion = belief
Atheism BY DEFINITION is a belief.

ATHEISM:
Full Definition of ATHEIST
:  one who believes that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Origin

late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

And because it is an organized system of beliefs, having high priests called scientists, and a god of self (because atheists claim they are the ones who are right), Atheism is a religion, and the word should be capitalized.

:)

If there is evidence, you have shown none. But i don't think that you can find one, since you seem adamant in asserting a small god, made by small minds. Your refusal of basic science (see the above fallacious sentence. Protip: calculate the numbers in entropy, then compare the numbers gained by hydrogen fusion in the sun to the entropy lost by all of Earth's life and its complexity. Divide by area and you won't scratch the orders of magnitude) shows this, but the polished rethoric makes it likely that you know that. What kind of god would demand his adherents to close their eyes and minds to the universe for fear of disrupting some words in a book? The minds and eyes, that according to your faith should be part of creation?

If you think that the theory of evolution cannot explain the diversity of life on Earth then you have not understood it properly. It explains this very well, that is why it is so popular. Of course it doesn't prove it 100% - logically nothing can prove anything with absolute certainty.


Wrong. While we can say "life on Earth is very unlikely", it is illogical to assume it can ONLY have been created by a higher being. We only have ONE data point with which to estimate how likely it is. If we had more data, say if we found self-aware beings on another planet separate from our own, then we could start to estimate the likelihood of such an event. Until then we only know that the laws of probability state that it is relatively unlikely, involving many things to be "just right" (eg carbon atoms readily bonding to other carbon atoms and many other elements, water freezing from the top down, Earth spinning on its axis at an angle, Earth being a perfect distance from the Sun etc.etc.)


Wrong again. The idea of "Survival of the Fittest" does not involve any kind of programming. It is down to random mutations in cells, some of which give an advantage to the organism. The organisms that have an advantage prosper, while the ones that don't tend to die. Rinse and repeat over billions of years, and you get the super-specialized animals that we see in the world today. You can't see all the ones that "went wrong" because they died out, you only see the specialized creatures, which gives the illusion that they were "created".


There is no proof to say that anything programmed anything, and if there does exist a god that programmed this world we live in, then I don't think it's very nice. If it still has influence on what's going on in this day and age, then why doesn't it stop all the pain? If it doesn't have any influence, then it made a bit of a mess.


Please stop with this "atheism is a religion" nonsense. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It could be described as an ideology I suppose, and there are certain archaic definitions of religion that it may fit, but it abso-fucking-lutely does not come under the modern definition of "Religion".

I don't want to argue about the semantics, but when people say "Religion", they're implying that a supernatural god exists. They also tend to imply that there exists a moral code which is in line with the supernatural god's wishes, amongst other unprovable, supernatural beliefs. Atheists are simply rejecting that ideology. ALthough it could be argued that they adhere to an "organized system of beliefs", this does not make atheism a religion in the general sense of the word.

I don't quite know what you mean by "high priests called scientists" and "a god of self".

But seriously, think about it. Are people who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster part of a religion? They adhere to an organized system of beliefs, such as "I believe that the lake is too small and does not contain enough prey to sustain such a huge creature", or "If the monster existed, then some good video footage would have been taken by now." Does that make anyone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster (or my flying huskies mentioned earlier) religious? No.

While atheism has similarities with religion, it is by the general definition not an actual religion.

While I agree with most of your assertions I do take argument with one of your points...
We know which lake the Loch Ness monster supposedly lives in. Which lake do we look for evidence of God in? You are assuming we even have a frame of reference for the search to begin with when there is literally zero evidence.

I am really sorry that I stopped receiving emails that this thread was still alive and thriving and have lost a lot of ground in this conversation.  I reviewed a couple pages since my last involvement and wanted to throw my hat in. 

I have been doing a lot of watching of Sam Harris and the old Hitchens material and that, not so much for the content as the structure of the conversation.  Hitchens was very witty and very able to tear down his opponent in a linguistic majesty that few will be able to rival, as well as keep the conversation structured and to the point.  Harris I find is often trapped by his opponents deviating the conversation into meaningless banter over nothing.  Something very common I find about his exchanges with theists or even other Atheists (see the Young Turks interview last month) is that it becomes a discussion of whether or not Islam or Christianity would be better had one or the other been real.  I think this conversation is going in a similar manner.

When I was reviewing the content (and I apologize for re hashing old convo) I saw someone referencing the dictionary definitions of atheist and agnostic and I just want to throw in my opinion that this was a tremendous and unfortunate deviation from any substantive conversation.  A simple review of the etymology of the word will reveal it's relevant meaning (the root form of the word was Greek, meaning "godless, ungodly, unruly" but it is not relevant history to the meaning applied here) was derived from the early English church, and was initially not even a term used to describe a person, but rather was more of a pejorative.  My point is, bickering over a word made up by the church is as frivolous as going to the Bible for your source of "facts" to back up your arguments. 

From my perspective anyone who wants to engage in this debate has to answer these three questions.  Again I apologize if these have come up already, but I am here now and (hopefully) will keep up this time. 

1) The basis of belief for all religions, particularly the Abrahamic traditions, is that God made man intentionally inferior to Himself and His lot in Heaven, only to debase us and further punish us for acting exactly the way he made us to be.  This fact is masqueraded by the "Free Will gift" bestowed upon us by God, (which, by the way, ever other human and otherwise creature on this planet seems to have outside the purview of God, but that is never mentioned) and any faults on our part are blamed on this "gift" that we cannot cope with, and not in any way relative to the way God made us.  Question: Why should we have to worship someone who intentionally made us inferior to him and also imposed laws upon us that we would never be able to fulfill due to the way He made us. 

2) My wife constantly reminds me that omission is as much a lie as a lie itself.  In the garden of Eden, when God refuses knowledge to humanity, is he not engaging in an act of deception about the true nature of reality?  It seems to me that the Serpent didn't deceive anyone, but only revealed Truth to man.  If God is so omniscient and almighty, surly He should have known the nature of His creation and thought better of putting this tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden?

3) The main tenant of Christianity is that God sent His "only begotten Son" to Earth to die on the cross "for our sins".  Is it really something worthy of worship that, knowing exactly how it would play out, God sent Jesus, who at some point also knew fully what was going to happen?  Jesus eventually died only to go to Heaven and live happily ever after until the End Times when He comes back like a super hero and wipes the slate of humanity clean and starts over fresh with the short list of good boys and girls in New Jerusalem.  How come literally none of the going-ons in the New Testament are mentioned literally anywhere else from that time?  No clay pots expounding the miracles of Jesus healing blind and diseased people and raising people from the dead...especially in a time where everything found its way onto a piece of parchment or clay tablet or something.  There is literally nothing to substantiate anything in the Bible, but most curiously this miracle birth occurs, and then nothing for years, and then the temple teaching as a boy, and then nothing, and then three years of preaching and miracles and now nothing again.  I mean literally nothing that even made it into the Bible was written within 50 years of the supposed events taking place.  Arguably a century.  How do you account for this utter lack of interest in such a miraculous fellow?

Sorry I know that last part was actually two questions, but it should give you enough to chew on without having to lower yourself to my inability to account for my questions...